A little 9/11 conspiracy video.

It just highlights that the plane that hit the second WTC tower did not fit the bill of a supposed 767.

You can leave remarks here if you want.

9/11 conspiracy video

I all for conspiracies, what do you think about these videos, though?

www.cnn.com...

Not to be a jerk... but its the videos like this one that gives this conspiracy a bad name.

That video does show the plane better (benelovent). And it looks consistant with a 767.

THe video I posted just had a differet video from a different angle that made the plane look smaller.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by YaYo]

Originally posted by YaYo
That video does show the plane better (benelovent). And it looks consistant with a 767.

THe video I posted just had a differet video from a different angle that made the plane look smaller.


[edit on 20-8-2005 by YaYo]

It's not that I'm not open to those ideas. It's the times when there is a heated discussion going and someone says "it's a fact that it was a cargo plane that hit the towers and a missle hit the pentagon"!. Those are the least easily provable facts yet, and it seems like all credibility on our part dissolves.

Yes, it's always best to get as much different input as you can.
I hear you, white4life420.

Hey, don't forget to watch Inside 9/11 tonight on NGC.

I am anxiously awaiting Inside 9/11. Any chance they will tell us what rings to be the truth, or will this be a debunking of the so called conspiracies involving 9/11?

Originally posted by dgtempe
Any chance they will tell us what rings to be the truth, or will this be a debunking of the so called conspiracies involving 9/11?

I don't think it's a debunking of conspiracies. But it's not going to sound like ATS, either. Watch the trailer and read more about it here: It's 2 nights.

www.nationalgeographic.com...

It looks to me like "conspiracies"---or as I like to call them, alternative viewpoints, since the government's own 9/11 story is the most implausible "conspiracy" of all---won't even bve discussed or mentioned, it's just going to take the official story at face value and go a lot more "in depth" as to how it was brought about---I'm sorry, but no amount of "in-depth" reporting will explain to me how Mohammed Atta's passprt was conveniently found on a pile of rubble. I was recently having a heated discussion with a co-worker about this, and his response was "well, what can I say? Crazy things sometimes survive explosions." My response? "True---but not if they're made of paper." Anyway, I'm sure this and other anomalies that all of us here know so much about will probably hardly get a fleeting mention. It will be an "in-depth" analysis that will go into a lot more detail than other shows on the subject have, but since it's taking the official story as gospel truth and basing all of its reporting on the supposition that the official story is correct, then no matter how in--depth or well-presented it is, it will be nothing more than a program that further bolsters the big lie.
---Ryan

Originally posted by RyanC
I was recently having a heated discussion with a co-worker about this, and his response was "well, what can I say? Crazy things sometimes survive explosions." My response? "True---but not if they're made of paper."

How was a luggage tag recovered from the Pentagon, then? ( www.google.co.uk... and click the first Cached link )

Photos, a wallet and currency from Flight 93? ( www.post-gazette.com... )


[edit on 30-8-2005 by ashmok]

Good question! It seems unlikely that anything made of paper would survive an explosion or fire of any sort. I supoose it could be planted "evidence," or it could be entirely freak circumstance. In any case,Mohammed Atta's passport being found easily on top of a pile of rubble while the airline black boxes from the planes that hit the WTC never show up (at least never in public), well---that jsut fits my definition of too convenient, I guess. As for the luggage tags in the Pentagon, again, who knows? Planted evidence? Freak acciedent that they survived? I guess I have to make up my mind more firmly on just what happened at the Pentagon. While I appreciate the arguments made in the article on the ATS main page that concludes that a plan most definitely did it hit the Pentagon, I'm still very undecided at this point. There has been so little actualy plane wreckage found, the are of the Pentagon that was hit was the least consequnetial in terms of the building's operation, the blast looks a lot more like a bomb or, more likely even, a missile---for these and other reasons my mind just isn't made up on what really happened at the Pentagon yet, and I'm probably not alone in that, I wouldn't think.
---Ryan

Originally posted by RyanC
Mohammed Atta's passport being found easily on top of a pile of rubble while the airline black boxes from the planes that hit the WTC never show up (at least never in public), well---that jsut fits my definition of too convenient, I guess.

I know what you mean, but on the other hand survival here depends on being ejected from the plane during the initial explosion. And that's more likely to apply to something small and lightweight, like a passport, than a metal box that's attached to the plane, I'd say.

This is not true at all. Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR) are designed to withstand impacts of up to 3400G's and temperatures of 1100C. They survive the worst of airplane crashes, because that is what they are DESIGNED to do.

National Transport Safety Board - Aviation Office
Cockpit Voice Recorder

Impact tolerance: 3400Gs / 6.5 ms
Fire resistance: 1100 degC / 30 min

Flight Data Recorder

Impact tolerance: 3400Gs / 6.5 ms
Fire resistance: 1100 degC / 30 min

I'm pretty sure the FDRs from the four hijacked flights were recovered but but not the Cockpit Voice Recorders, probably because they will show that nobody hijacked the planes and the pilots were in a panic because the plane they were in was under remote control.

If the fires were hot enough to destroy CVRs, then how did the magical passport survive intact? The premise is so ridiculous as to be insulting. It's amazing, the audacity of elements in the U.S govt. and how stupid they assume the chattle really are.

PS: Ashmok, can you please shorten your link? It's messing up the thread formatting.

[edit on 2005-8-30 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
This is not true at all. Cockpit Voice Recorders (CVR) and Flight Data Recorders (FDR) are designed to withstand impacts of up to 3400G's and temperatures of 1100C.

They aren't built to withstand the pressure of several floors of the WTC falling on them, though.

If the fires were hot enough to destroy CVRs, then how did the magical passport survive intact?

In the same way that many other flimsy personal effects did. Lisa Anne Frost was on Flight 175, for instance, and a year after 9/11 her parents got her Air Mileage Plus card back. The passport doesn't have to be "magical" or "indestructible" or anything else -- other personal effects survived, too.

PS: Ashmok, can you please shorten your link? It's messing up the thread formatting.

Really? It's okay here. Problem is that the only way to get to this text without registering is using the Google cache link. The forum software didn't understand the full link, which is why I I had to rearrange it... Anyway, I can't edit it now. Maybe a mod can?

[edit on 31-8-2005 by ashmok]